challenge_state

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output fields and the notable behavior that datadome is recognised but not solvable, but it does not explicitly confirm the call is side-effect-free or safe to poll.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded with what the tool reports, then lists only the necessary enum values and the solvable linkage. No sentence is redundant for a state-query tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter state query with an output schema present, the description supplies the key enum meanings and the relationship to solve_challenge. An agent has enough context to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameter syntax, and it adds useful output-field semantics instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states exactly what is reported: the gate shown on the current page, with enumerated kind values. It also names solve_challenge and clarifies that solvable indicates whether solve_challenge can handle the gate, distinguishing this state check from the solving action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The mention that solvable indicates whether solve_challenge can take it on implies this tool should be consulted before solving, but it does not explicitly say when to call it, when not to call it, or what to do for each gate kind. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.